The creation of “new human variants” suitable for medical research through genetic engineering is a complex and highly controversial issue, involving multiple scientific, ethical and legal aspects. The following is the key analysis： ###**Scientific feasibility** 1. **Existing technology** Gene editing techniques (such as CRISPR-Cas9) have been able to accurately modify genes and are widely used in animal models. In theory, targeted editing of the human genome is possible, such as enhancing disease resistance or simulating diseases. However, the complexity of the human genome and the interaction between genes may lead to unpredictable side effects (such as off-target effects). 2. **Challenges and risks** -**Polymorphism**: A single gene may affect multiple physiological processes, and editing may lead to unintended consequences. -**Germ cell editing**: If embryos or germ cells are involved, the modification will be passed on to future generations. At present, the international scientific community generally prohibits such research (except for very rare cases). -**Long-term safety**: The long-term effects of gene editing (such as the risk of cancer) are not yet clear. ###**Ethical issues** 1. **Human dignity and toolization** The creation of human variants ”dedicated to medical research" may regard them as tools rather than individuals, contrary to ethical principles (such as the protection of human rights in the Declaration of Helsinki). 2. **Social equity and discrimination** -If technology is only used by specific groups, it may exacerbate social inequality. -Genetic enhancement may lead to controversy over “designing babies”, raising eugenics concerns. 3. **The conundrum of informed consent** Mutants cannot independently agree to the purpose for which they are created, especially embryos or individuals who cannot express their will. ###**Law and Regulation** -**International consensus**: Most countries prohibit germ cell editing. Agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have called for strict regulation and only somatic cell editing is allowed to be used to treat serious diseases. -**Legal vacuum**: If technology is abused, there may be a lack of a globally unified response mechanism. ###**Alternative** 1. **Organoids and 3D biological models** The use of stem cells to cultivate human tissues or miniature organs (such as liver and brain organoids) can simulate diseases and test drugs to avoid ethical disputes. 2. **Animal model optimization** Gene-edited animals (such as transgenic mice) are still mainstream research tools, and new technologies such as “humanized mice” can carry human genes or cells. 3. **Artificial intelligence and computational models** Simulate the gene-disease relationship through AI to reduce the dependence on in vivo experiments. ###**Conclusion** Although genetic engineering theoretically has the potential to create “special human variants for medical research”, it is currently not feasible and unacceptable due to technical risks, ethical disputes and legal prohibitions. Medical research should give priority to the development of ethically acceptable alternative technologies (such as organoids and AI models), while promoting prudent supervision of gene editing. Scientific exploration must always take human well-being as the core, rather than breaking through the ethical bottom line.